name wrote: the store owner has rights but those rights end at the point when they begin to infringe on someone else's personal civil liberties.

exactly...that's why I'm talking about a balance that needs to be found

Thu Mar 06, 2003 5:10 pm

Bleys

Joined: 09 Oct 2002
Posts: 156

The swastika jacket was bought in my store too.

I don't see how my disliking a swastika is any less valid than the mall owners disliking a peace shirt. Stop talking about valid reasons... their reason WAS perfectly valid.

Thu Mar 06, 2003 5:15 pm

Nope

Joined: 23 Jan 2003
Posts: 1916

Bleys wrote:

I don't see how my disliking a swastika is any less valid than the mall owners disliking a peace shirt.

I didn't say it was...that was sliquid

Thu Mar 06, 2003 5:18 pm

Bleys

Joined: 09 Oct 2002
Posts: 156

So then my example should have you agreeing with me on this... unless I'm missing something still.

Thu Mar 06, 2003 9:36 pm

quasifoto

Joined: 30 Jun 2002
Posts: 975
Location: Albany

come on! the shirt said peace on earth! how is that offensive to anyone??? bush says he wants peace. the mall fucked up bigtime. they're embarassed. they dropped charges. it was a huge mistake. i don't get how anyone can side with the mall on this. peace on earth. a fucking christmas slogan.

this has pissed so many people off here in albany!@#@#

Thu Mar 06, 2003 9:56 pm

Nope

Joined: 23 Jan 2003
Posts: 1916

RandomSurge wrote:

Bleys wrote:

This is balanced perfectly.

You can't wear whatever you want in someone else's store, and the store owner can't wear whatever he wants in your house.

nonono...that's definitely not the same thing...again, don't forget that you bought the article at the guys store. He didn't buy shit in your house

Bleys wrote:
but in MY store... I can ask him to take it off.

sure...you can ask him. And if you have a good reason to, and he refuses then you have all the right in the world to kick him out.

that's where your example was left at

name worded it for me perfectly...

"the store owner has rights but those rights end at the point when they begin to infringe on someone else's personal civil liberties"

if there is no balace between people's rights, then a certain type of people have rights over others which go against their original rights in the first place (I doubt that makes any sense to you...don't blame you)

I already said that if it was somebody with a nazi sign, I'd still be here arguing...and it would be even worse cause then you get people trying to say that it shouldn't be allowed completely ignoring a basic civil liberty

I don't care how private a place is...it doesn't give them the right to bend people over and expect them to just take it

I don't see how my disliking a swastika is any less valid than the mall owners disliking a peace shirt. Stop talking about valid reasons... their reason WAS perfectly valid.

Apparently it wasn't. Seeing as how they dropped it, obviously they knew it was wrong.

Thank you though.
heh

Thu Mar 06, 2003 10:39 pm

ihaveagluegun

Joined: 14 Oct 2002
Posts: 907
Location: Austin, Tx

ya right, have you ever heard of PR? thats why they dropped it

Thu Mar 06, 2003 10:46 pm

Nope

Joined: 23 Jan 2003
Posts: 1916

ihaveagluegun wrote: ya right, have you ever heard of PR? thats why they dropped it

obviously

both of their decisions were based on stupid shit

at least nothing's going to happen to the old man...

Thu Mar 06, 2003 10:48 pm

Bleys

Joined: 09 Oct 2002
Posts: 156

They dropped charges for 2 reasons most likely, neither of which have anything to do with right and wrong:

1. As ihaveagluegun said, they were getting a lot of negative press.
2. It probably would have cost more in court fees than it was worth.

As far as name's comment on civil liberties. Freedom of speech (the likely liberty you're referring to) extends only to the GOVERNMENT'S limitation of such. The government cannot tell you to take off your peace shirt, but the owner of a private establishment (like a mall) has the right.

Fri Mar 07, 2003 12:09 am

Illiterate

Joined: 07 Mar 2003
Posts: 10
Location: So Cal

This is what happens

What can we expect. Nothing better. Land of the Free for those who carry heavy pocketbooks and tireless Cellphone advertising.

Fri Mar 07, 2003 12:13 am

Nope

Joined: 23 Jan 2003
Posts: 1916

so basically you have no rights in a private institution...

it's the twilight zone

please...these rights are the basis on what this country is supposedly built on and represents (that's the gov't talking, not me)

you have private property rights
you have your basic civil liberties

there needs to be a balance...one shouldn't completely override the other

Fri Mar 07, 2003 12:32 am

Nope

Joined: 23 Jan 2003
Posts: 1916

funny thing...their original intent is to remove the dude because they don't want controversy in their mall (bad pr)

but then they deal with it and it ends up being much worse than if they had never done anything in the first place

Fri Mar 07, 2003 12:35 am

Bleys

Joined: 09 Oct 2002
Posts: 156

Well, I don't think you can assume their original intent like that. They might just not like peaceniks.

Anyway, "so basically you have no rights in a private institution..."

Not completely. Laws still apply. You have a right not to get sexually assaulted or killed, etc. But you DON'T have the right to wear whatever you want.

The mall owners aren't allowed to rip the shirt off his body and burn it, but they are allowed to ask him to leave if he doesn't want to take it off.